PUNJAB MANDI BOARD vs JAGRUP SINGH . — C.A. No. 4614/2007

Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010035182004

Filing Date

14-Feb-2004

Registration No

C.A. No. 4614/2007

Diary Number

3518/2004

Order Date

25-May-2010

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section IV

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PUNJAB MANDI BOARD

    Adv. R. N. KESWANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAGRUP SINGH .

    Adv. S. JANANI (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-May-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 08-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 28-Sep-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 04-Aug-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 13-Jan-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 01-Apr-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 04-Mar-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 25-Oct-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 04-Oct-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 16-Apr-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 02-Apr-2004

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 14-Feb-2004

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 4614/2007

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.A. No. 004614/2007 Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed Punjab Mandi Board's appeal on May 25, 2010. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision upholding concurrent findings that employee Jagrup Singh was wrongfully denied promotion since 1988 and was entitled to salary arrears even when retrospectively promoted in 1999 under the "No Work No Pay" principle. Reason for Dismissal: The Court found the appeal was filed merely to waste public time and money. Despite the appeal being pending for six years (filed April 2004), the appellant failed to file the Trial Court's judgment or supporting documents despite being granted time to do so on August 4, 2006. The appellant's counsel even stated on August 25, 2006, that no additional documents would be filed. Note: The Court left the substantive question of law open, declining to decide on perversity grounds without complete case records. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case